MINUTES

November 8, 2001

6:30 p.m. Council Chambers

Members Present: Mary Templeton, J. Lattanzi, B. Rasmussen, P. Esposito, M. Paparozzi, R. Hicks, Jr.

Members Absent: J. Kraley, T. Miller, E. Skriner, and K. Martis

City Staff: Jim Wood, Planning Director

RZ01-08 / Monazam / 3566 Collins Ferry Road: Request by Esmail and Sherry Monazam to rezone property located at 3566 Collins Ferry Road from R-1, Single-family Residential to B-1, Neighborhood Business. Tax Map #51, Parcel #6.

M. Templeton asked the applicant if he still wanted to table the request, as previously reported to staff. Mr. Monazam responded that he wanted to move forward with the request.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She stated that Mr. Monazam is proposing to rezone a parcel of property from residential to a neighborhood business district. She also stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the property to remain residential and that the Commission should consider the request on its merits as a land-use decision.

J. Wood stated that Mr. Monazam requested that his application be tabled and that the neighbors have been notified. He added that he is uncomfortable moving forward with the request. The Commission agreed to review the request after Mr. Monazam stated that he did not intend to request that it be tabled.

P. Esposito excused himself from voting on the request.

Esmail Monazam presented his request to the Commission. He submitted a copy of his presentation to each member. He stated that he has worked from his home and that he is seeking a rezoning for this property to locate his engineering business at the proposed location. Mr. Monazam also stated that the business would not utilize Flagel Street because all parking would be off Collins Ferry Road. He also added that he is willing to construct a six (6) foot privacy fence around the property if it would pacify the neighbors.

M. Templeton asked for public comment.

Dave Hickman, 6 Flagel Street, spoke in opposition of the rezoning request.

Michael Hurst, 790 Morgan Drive, spoke in opposition of the request.

Julie Cryser, 6 Flagel Street, spoke in opposition of the request.

Don Trevorrow, 512 Milford Street, also spoke in opposition.

J. Lattanzi noted that all but one business that Mr. Monazam mentioned in his request was located outside of corporate city limits. He also added that he believes that granting this request would have an impact on Flagel Street.

Motion made by M. Paparozzi to forward a recommendation of denial to City Council, seconded by J. Lattanzi. Motion approved unanimously, with P. Esposito abstaining.

MNS01-13 / Friend Enterprises, Inc. / 52 Campus Drive: Request by Friend Enterprises, Inc. for minor subdivision to combined parcel and subdivide into two parcels each containing over 12,000 square feet for property located at 52 Campus Drive. Tax Map #20 Parcels# 78, 79, 80, 81, 83; an M-U, Mixed Use District.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She stated that Mr. Friend proposes to do a minor boundary adjustment to make two parcels containing over 12,000 square feet each.

David Friend, co-owner of Friend Enterprises, Inc., presented his request to the Commission.

M. Templeton asked for public comment. There was none.

No discussion ensued.

Motion made by J. Lattanzi to approve the minor subdivision request, seconded by M. Paparozzi. Motion approved unanimously.

S01-13 / Friend Enterprises, Inc. / 52 Campus Drive: Request by Friend Enterprises, Inc. for site plan approval to construct a four (4) story building with twelve (12) two-bedroom apartments and two (2) three-bedroom apartment and parking facilities. Tax Map #20 Parcels# 78, 79, 80, 81, 83; an M-U, Mixed Use District.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She stated that Mr. Friend has proposed a plan to construct a four (4) story building with twelve (12) two-bedroom apartments and two (2) three-bedroom apartments, with required parking facilities, at 52 Campus Drive. She also added that the apartment complex would be comparable with the one that Mr. Friend had previously constructed on the adjacent lot. M. Templeton added that all requirements would be met.

P. Espositio asked the applicant the proximity of the dumpster for the current complex and if it could be accessed from Grant Street due to the traffic on Campus Drive. Mr. Friend replied that parking and green space would be altered and that refuse pick up happens at 4:00 a.m.

M. Templeton asked for public comment. There was none.

No discussion ensued.

Motion made by M. Paparozzi for site plan approval to include conditions in the staff report,, seconded by J. Lattanzi. Motion approved unanimously.

F01-10 / Levels / 345 High Street: Request by Levels for façade review approval for signage at 345 High Street. Tax Map #26A, Parcel #105, a B-4, General Business District.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She reported that because the material, construction, size, and location of the proposed sign was not changing, a new conditional use permit was not warranted. She also added that because the design of the sign copy has changed, it needed to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. She also indicated that the Design Review Committee was not satisfied with the new design and is forwarding a recommendation for denial.

Mottie Pavone, owner of Level’s, presented his request to the Commission.

J. Wood stated that the objections of the Design Review Committee were because of the color schemes, the placement of the lettering, and because of the contemporary design in a historic district, as well as the wording (VIP Lounge, Bar & Grill, Nite Club).

Discussion ensued on the appropriateness of the sign in a historic district.

George Vrooman, Manager for Level’s, discussed the proposed sign.

J. Lattanzi asked the applicant if he were willing to work with the Design Review Committee to work toward a compromise on the design. The applicant agreed.

R. Hicks, Jr. asked for discussion on the notification of property owners in the B-4 District regarding the need to get sign permits. J. Wood stated that a vast majority of the property owners are aware of the requirements and sign permits are needed for all signs.

B. Rasmussen added that the Design Review process is not a matter of "taste" but a matter of a consensus among the downtown business owners that the area would retain a certain ambiance.

Motion made by B. Rasmussen to deny the request, seconded by M. Paparozzi. Motion approved unanimously.

P. Esposito advised that a check and balance system be made to eliminate future problems of applicants claiming to be unaware of the need for a sign permit.

S01-14 / Metheny / 549 Clark Street: Request by Gregg Metheny for site plan approval to locate a dumpster on property located at 549 Clark Street. Tax Map #29, Parcel #282, a R-1A, Single-family Residential District.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She stated that Mr. Metheny proposes to have an off-premise dumpster at 549 Clark Street. She added that the tenants from 550 Brockway would utilize the dumpster. She also added that Mr. Metheny has indicated that he will comply with the zoning ordinance requirement to screen the dumpster on three sides.

J. Lattanzi added that many letters of opposition of the request have been submitted to the Planning Department.

J. Wood added that the department notified neighbors as a courtesy, as notification was not required in that case. He also stated that a judgment call was made that this case required site plan approval, though there is no clear guidance in the ordinance.

Gregg Metheny, applicant, presented his request to the Commission. He stated that he elected to move the dumpster in effort to solve the problem of unauthorized use.

M. Templeton asked for public comment.

Mickey Furfari, 537 Clark Street, spoke in opposition to the request.

Savone O’Harra, Clark Street, spoke in opposition to the request.

Discussion ensued on refuse requirements.

B. Rasmussen shared the importance of the Greenmont Area and R-1A requirements.

Motion made by J. Lattanzi to deny the site plan request, seconded by B. Rasmussen. Motion approved unanimously.

TX01-06 / Triple M, LLC / Text Amendment: Triple M, LLC initiative to amend section §19.E.4.m.1., Private Clubs, which states, "The specific locations at which private club licenses exist on the date of the ordinance shall become legal non-conforming uses and subject to Section 20 requirements, except that such use shall not be permitted to expand within the building it occupies.

M. Templeton read the staff report. She stated that the proposed text amendment would exempt outside decks from the prohibition against expanding grand fathered, non-conforming private clubs.

J. Wood added that initially, staff’s recommendation was for denial. However, after further study, has decided to change staff’s recommendation to neutral.

P. Esposito asked for clarification regarding the existing grand-fathering scenario and the proposed ordinance. J. Wood stated that currently, existing non-conforming private clubs couldn’t expand. However, under the proposed ordinance amendment, those clubs can apply for a conditional use to allow for the expansion of their serving area to outdoor.

Motion made by P. Esposito to forward a recommendation for denial to City Council, seconded by J. Lattanzi. Motion approved unanimously.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): Discussion of Planned Unit Developments (PUD)

J. Wood stated that the current zoning ordinance does not have language that permits Planned Unit Developments (PUD), which is a zoning tool that is common throughout the United States. He explained that a PUD is an overlay-zoning district, where the underlying zoning district does not change. He further explained that a PUD is a large piece of land that calls for a master plan that is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The master plan would become the new zoning ordinance for that property. J. Wood added that the advantages of this would be that the City would know for certain what is going to be built on property, and could not be deviated from without an amendment process. Secondly, this plan would be flexible to developers allowing the City to retain concessions that would not normally be received.

J. Wood added that a property owner in the City has accumulated a 10 acre tract of land and is seeking to develop a mixed-use urban infill project that only possible under guidelines of a PUD. It would not be possible under current zoning standards.

Discussion ensued. No action taken.

Don Trevvorow, 512 Milford Street, questioned if public notification would be given for meetings with consultants. J. Wood stated that when a consultant was under contract, there would be at least six public meetings along with the public hearings with required advertising.